Evaluating pelvic tilt using the pelvic antero-posterior radiographs: A novel method.

Pelvic tilt (PT) is an important parameter for orthopedic surgeries involving hip and spine, typically determined from sagittal pelvic radiographs. However, various challenges can compromise the feasibility of measurement from sagittal imaging, including obscured landmarks, anatomical variations, hardware interference, and limited medical resources. Addressing these challenges and with the aim of reducing radiation exposure to patients, our study developed a novel method to estimate PT from antero-posterior (AP) radiographs, using vertical distances from the pelvic outlet and obturator foramen. We correlated these measurements with PT, defined both anatomically (anterior pelvic plane, PTa) and mechanically (centers of femoral heads and sacral plate, PTm). The study explored creating linear, exponential, and multivariate regression models based on twelve 3D CT-derived pelvic models (six men, six women), simulating AP radiograph projections with controlled PTs. We then validated these models against 105 pairs of patient stereoradiographs. Statistical analysis revealed that combined exponential-linear models yielded the most accurate results, with Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.75 for PTa and 0.77 for PTm, and mean absolute errors of 3.7° ± 2.6° for PTa and 4.5° ± 3.4° for PTm, showing excellent measurement reliability (all ICCs > 0.9) without significant gender discrepancies. In conclusion, this study presents a validated, simple, and accessible method for estimating PT using AP radiograph parameters, supported by the Supporting Information S1: Excel Tool, showing great potential for clinical application in hip and spine procedures.

Evaluating the Clinical Relevance of Routine Sonication for Periprosthetic Hip or Knee Joint Infection Diagnosis.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication after joint arthroplasty. PJI screening and conventional cultures may be inconclusive. Sonication fluid culturing stands out as a valuable adjunct technique for PJI diagnosis. This study aims to determine the clinical relevance of routine sonication for all (a)septic revisions. All patients who underwent (partial) hip or knee revision arthroplasty between 2012 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. We formed three groups based on the European Bone and Joint Society PJI criteria: infection confirmed, likely, and unlikely. We analyzed clinical, laboratory, and radiological screening. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for synovial fluid (preoperative), tissue, and sonication fluid cultures. We determined the clinical relevance of sonication as the percentage of patients for whom sonication confirmed PJI; 429 patients who underwent (partial) revision of hip or knee arthroplasty were included. Sensitivity and specificity were 69% and 99% for synovial fluid cultures, 76% and 92% for tissue cultures, and 80% and 89% for sonication fluid cultures, respectively. Sonication fluid cultures improved tissue culture sensitivity and specificity to 83% and 99%, respectively. In 11% of PJIs, sonication fluid cultures were decisive for diagnosis. This is applicable to acute and chronic infections. Sonication fluid cultures enhanced the sensitivity and specificity of PJI diagnostics. In 11% of PJI cases, causative pathogens were confirmed by sonication fluid culture results. Sonication fluid culture should be performed in all revision arthroplasties.

Accuracy of acetabular component alignment with surgical guidance systems during hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Navigation in total hip arthroplasty has been shown to improve acetabular positioning and can decrease the incidence of mal-positioned acetabular components. This study aimed to assess two surgical guidance systems by comparing intra-operative measurements of acetabular component inclination and anteversion with a post-operative CT scan. METHODS: We prospectively collected intra-operative navigation data from 102 hips receiving conventional THA or hip resurfacing arthroplasty through either a direct anterior or posterior approach. Two guidance systems were used simultaneously: an inertial navigation system (INS) and an optical navigation system (ONS). Acetabular component anteversion and inclination were measured on a post-operative CT. RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 64 years (range: 24-92) and the average BMI was 27 kg/m2 (range 19-38). 52% had hip surgery through an anterior approach. 98% of the INS measurements and 88% of the ONS measurements were within 10° of the CT measurements. The mean (and standard deviation) of the absolute difference between the postoperative CT and the intra-operative measurements for inclination and anteversion were 3.0° (2.8) and 4.5° (3.2) respectively for the ONS, along with 2.1° (2.3) and 2.4° (2.1) respectively for the INS. There was a significantly lower mean absolute difference to CT for the INS when compared to ONS in both anteversions (p < 0.001) and inclination (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: We found that both inertial and optical navigation systems allowed for adequate acetabular positioning as measured on postoperative CT, and thus provide reliable intraoperative feedback for optimal acetabular component placement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II.

Reinfection rates after one- and two-stage revision surgery for hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Revisions for periprosthetic joint infection of knee and hip arthroplasty can be performed following one- or two-stage treatment protocols. Current literature is inconclusive whether one protocol is superior to the other, as prior literature reported similar reinfection rates for both treatment options. We aimed to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature on septic arthroplasty revisions. METHODS: Between April 2015 and December 2020, Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting reinfection outcomes in patients treated with one-stage and two-stage knee or hip revision arthroplasty. Two reviewers independently extracted data and disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. We utilized a double arcsine transformation, prior to pooling using a random-effects model. RESULTS: For hip revision arthroplasty, we identified 14 one-stage studies (n = 1237) with a pooled reinfection rate of 5.7% (95% CI 3.7-8.1%), and 46 two-stage studies (n = 5009) with a reinfection rate of 8.4% (95% CI 6.9-9.9%). For knee revision arthroplasty, 6 one-stage studies (n = 527) and 48 two-stage studies (n = 4344) were identified with reinfection rates of 12.7% (7.0-19.7%) and 16.2% (13.7-19.0%), respectively. Overall, reinfection rates did not vary substantially after subgroup analysis. Limitations of our study are the limited amount of one-stage studies that introduce a potential bias. CONCLUSION: The reinfection rates following one- and two-stage hip and knee arthroplasty revisions were similar. Knee reinfection rates have increased compared to the previous analysis. Individual patient characteristics and adequate treatment algorithms are needed for a more individual selection approach, until a randomized trial is performed.

A mean 4-year evaluation of infection control rates of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection-related revision arthroplasty: an observational study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The long-term results of the 1- or 2-stage revision procedure and infection-free prosthesis survival in a tertiary referral center are unknown. In this retrospective observational study, the long-term results of infection control and infection-free prosthesis survival of the periprosthetic joint infection-related 1- and 2-stage revision procedure are evaluated. Furthermore, the merits of performing an antibiotic-free window in the 2-stage revision is evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who received a 1- or 2-stage revision procedure of the hip or knee between 2010 and 2017 were included. Data was collected on patient and infection characteristics. The primary treatment aim was successful infection control without the use of antibiotic therapy afterwards. Infection-free survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with type of periprosthetic joint infection-related revision as covariate. Within the group of 2-stage revisions, use of an antibioticfree window was selected as covariate. RESULTS: 128 patients were treated for a periprosthetic joint infection-related revision procedure (81 hips and 47 knees). Successful infection control was achieved in 18 of 21 cases for the 1-stage and 89 out of 107 cases for the 2-stage revision procedure (83%) respectively after follow-up of more than 4 years. In addition, 2-stage revision procedure infection control was achieved in 52 of 60 cases with an antibiotic-free interval and 37 of 45 cases without such interval (p = 0.6). The mean infection-free survival of the 1-stage revision was 90 months (95% CI 75-105) and 98 months (CI 90-106) for the 2-stage revision procedure. INTERPRETATION: There seems to be no difference in infection control and infection-free survival between the 1- and 2-stage revision procedure. Second, an antibiotic-free window in the case of a 2-stage revision did not seem to influence treatment outcome. However, one must be cautious when interpreting these results due to confounding by indication and the small study population. Therefore, no definite conclusion can be drawn.

Long-term outcome of two-stage revision surgery after hip and knee prosthetic joint infections: an observational study.

Introduction: Two-stage revision surgery is the most frequently performed procedure in patients with a chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The infection eradication rates in the current literature differ between 54 % and 100 %, which could be attributed to different treatment strategies. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the infection eradication rate in patients with chronic PJI treated with two-stage revision surgery of the hip or knee in primary and re-revision cases. Methods: All patients treated with a two-stage revision for chronic PJI between 2005 and 2011 were analysed. Patient and infection characteristics were retrieved. Primary outcome was successful infection eradication at last follow-up. Successful eradication is specified as no need for subsequent revision surgery or suppressive antibiotic treatment. Results: Forty-seven patients were treated with a two-stage revision. Infection eradication was achieved in 36 out of 47 cases. Thirty-eight patients had positive cultures: 35 monomicrobial infections and 3 polymicrobial infections. Nine cases of culture-negative infections were identified. Accompanying eradication rates were 26 out of 35 cases, 2 out of 3 cases, and 8 out of 9 cases respectively. Mean follow-up was 128 (27-186) months. For hip and knee revisions the eradication rates were 22 out of 31 cases and 14 out of 16 cases respectively. After primary arthroplasty the infection was eradicated in 29 out of 38 cases and after re-revision in 7 out of 9 cases. Conclusion: In this study, the infection eradication rate for two-stage revision surgery after PJI of the hip and knee in primary and re-revision cases was 77 %. No statistically significant patient, infection and micro-organism characteristics were found which influence the infection eradication rates at long-term follow-up of 128 (27-186) months.

One-year infection control rates of a DAIR (debridement, antibiotics and implant retention) procedure after primary and prosthetic-joint-infection-related revision arthroplasty - a retrospective cohort study.

Introduction: Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedures are effective treatments for acute postoperative or acute hematogenous periprosthetic joint infections. However, literature reporting on the effectiveness of DAIR procedures performed after a one- or two-stage revision because of a prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (PJI-related revision arthroplasty) is scarce. The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the infection control after 1 year of a DAIR procedure in the case of an early postoperative infection either after primary arthroplasty or after PJI-related revision arthroplasty. Materials and methods: All patients treated with a DAIR procedure within 3 months after onset of PJI between 2009 and 2017 were retrospectively included. Data were collected on patient and infection characteristics. All infections were confirmed by applying the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) 2014 criteria. The primary outcome was successful control of infection at 1 year after a DAIR procedure, which was defined as the absence of clinical signs, such as pain, swelling, and erythema; radiological signs, such as protheses loosening; or laboratory signs, such as C-reactive protein (CRP) ( < 10 ) with no use of antibiotic therapy. Results: Sixty-seven patients were treated with a DAIR procedure (41 hips and 26 knees). Successful infection control rates of a DAIR procedure after primary arthroplasty ( n = 51 ) and after prior PJI-related revision arthroplasty ( n = 16 ) were 69 % and 56 %, respectively ( p = 0.38 ). The successful infection control rates of a DAIR procedure after an early acute infection ( n = 35 ) and after a hematogenous infection ( n = 16 ) following primary arthroplasty were both 69 % ( p = 1.00 ). Conclusion: In this limited study population, no statistically significant difference is found in infection control after 1 year between DAIR procedures after primary arthroplasty and PJI-related revision arthroplasty.

Improved patient reported outcomes with functional articulating spacers in two-stage revision of the infected hip.

BACKGROUND: Two-stage revision arthroplasty with an antibiotic-loaded spacer is the treatment of choice in chronically infected total hip arthroplasties. Interval spacers can be functional articulating or prefabricated. Functional results of these spacers have scarcely been reported. AIM: To compare retrospectively the patient reported outcome and infection eradication rate after two-stage revision arthroplasty of the hip with the use of a functional articulating or prefabricated spacer. METHODS: All patients with two-stage revision of a hip prosthesis at our hospital between 2003 and 2016 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups; patients treated with a functional articulating spacer or with a prefabricated spacer. Patients completed the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and the EQ-5D-3L (EQ-5D) and the EQ-5D quality of life thermometer (EQ-VAS) scores. Primary outcomes were patient reported outcome and infection eradication after two-stage revision. The results of both groups were compared to the patient acceptable symptom state for primary arthroplasty of the hip. Secondary outcomes were complications during spacer treatment and at final follow-up. Descriptive statistics, mean and range are used to represent the demographics of the patients. For numerical variables, students' t-tests were used to assess the level of significance for differences between the groups, with 95% confidence intervals; for binary outcome, we used Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: We consecutively treated 55 patients with a prefabricated spacer and 15 patients with a functional articulating spacer of the hip. The infection eradication rates for functional articulating and prefabricated spacers were 93% and 78%, respectively (P > 0.05). With respect to the functional outcome, the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and its subscores (all P < 0.01), the EQ-5D (P < 0.01) and the EQ-VAS scores (P < 0.05) were all significantly better for patients successfully treated with a functional articulating spacer. More patients in the functional articulating spacer group reached the patient acceptable symptom state for the HOOS pain, HOOS quality of life and EQ-VAS. The number of patients with a spacer dislocation was not significantly different for the functional articulating or prefabricated spacer group (P > 0.05). However, the number of dislocations per patient experiencing a dislocation was significantly higher for patients with a prefabricated spacer (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Functional articulating spacers lead to improved patient reported functional outcome and less perioperative complications after two-stage revision arthroplasty of an infected total hip prosthesis, while maintaining a similar infection eradication rate compared to prefabricated spacers.

Similar risk of complete revision for infection with single-dose versus multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee: results of an observational cohort study in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register in 242,179 patients.

Background and purpose - The optimal type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis for primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee are subject to debate. We compared the risk of complete revision (obtained by a 1- or 2-stage procedure) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty between patients receiving a single dose of prophylactic antibiotics and patients receiving multiple doses of antibiotics for prevention of PJI. Patients and methods - A cohort of 130,712 primary total hip and 111,467 knee arthroplasties performed between 2011 and 2015 in the Netherlands was analyzed. We linked data from the Dutch arthroplasty register to a survey collected across all Dutch institutions on hospital-level antibiotic prophylaxis policy. We used restricted cubic spline Poisson models adjusted for hospital clustering to compare the risk of revision for infection according to type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis received. Results - For total hip arthroplasties, the rates of revision for infection were 31/10,000 person-years (95% CI 28-35), 39 (25-59), and 23 (15-34) in the groups that received multiple doses of cefazolin, multiple doses of cefuroxime, and a single dose of cefazolin, respectively. The rates for knee arthroplasties were 27/10,000 person-years (95% CI 24-31), 40 (24-62), and 24 (16-36). Similar risk of complete revision for infection among antibiotic prophylaxis regimens was found when adjusting for confounders. Interpretation - In a large observational cohort we found no apparent association between the type or duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and the risk of complete revision for infection. This does question whether there is any advantage to the use of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis beyond a single dose.

Sonication Leads to Clinically Relevant Changes in Treatment of Periprosthetic Hip or Knee Joint Infection.

Background: Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be troublesome. Sonication can be a helpful tool in culturing bacteria that are difficult to detect with standard tissue cultures. Aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical importance of our standardized sonication protocol in detecting periprosthetic joint infection. Materials and methods: All patients with revision surgery of a hip or knee prosthesis between 2011 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed and divided in two groups: clinically suspected of infection or not suspected of infection. For both tissue culture and implant sonication, calculations of sensitivity and specificity were performed. Clinical relevance of sonication was evaluated by calculating in which percentage of patients' sonication influenced clinical treatment. Results: 226 patients with revision of a total hip prosthesis (122 patients) or a total knee prosthesis (104 patients) were included. Sensitivity of perioperatively taken tissue cultures was 94.3% and specificity was 99.3%. For sonication sensitivity was 80.5% and specificity was 97.8%. In the infection group eight patients (9%) with only one positive tissue culture and a positive sonication fluid culture with the same pathogen were found. Interpretation: Although sensitivity and specificity of sonication was lower compared to tissue cultures, periprosthetic joint infection could only be established in 8 patients (9%) suspected of infection because of a positive result of the sonication fluid culture. Sonication leads to clinically relevant changes in treatment and seems therefore to be a helpful diagnostic tool in clinical practice.

Two-stage revision arthroplasty for coagulase-negative staphylococcal periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and knee.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are frequently caused by coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CoNS), which is known to be a hard-to-treat microorganism. Antibiotic resistance among causative pathogens of PJI is increasing. Two-stage revision is the favoured treatment for chronic CoNS infection of a hip or knee prosthesis. We hypothesised that the infection eradication rate of our treatment protocol for two-stage revision surgery for CoNS PJI of the hip and knee would be comparable to eradication rates described in the literature. AIM: To evaluate the infection eradication rate of two-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI caused by CoNS. METHODS: All patients treated with two-stage revision of a hip or knee prosthesis were retrospectively included. Patients with CoNS infection were included in the study, including polymicrobial cases. Primary outcome was infection eradication at final follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were included in the study. Twenty-nine patients were treated for PJI of the hip and fifteen for PJI of the knee. At final follow-up after a mean of 37 mo, recurrent or persistent infection was present in eleven patients. CONCLUSION: PJI with CoNS can be a difficult to treat infection due to increasing antibiotic resistance. Infection eradication rate of 70%-80% may be achieved.

Synovial chondromatosis of the hip, a case report and literature review.

A case of giant synovial chondromatosis of the hip with extra-articular localisation in the ileopectineal bursa is presented and the literature concerning this condition is reviewed. Synovial chondromatosis is a rare condition of unknown aetiology. A literature search was performed to identify studies describing outcome after surgical treatment of synovial chondromatosis of the hip. Thirteen studies including two hundred-ninety patients could be included. Mean follow-up was fifty-six months. Seven out of two hundred-ninety developed a complication after surgical resection of the lesion. Recurrence rate of synovial chondromatosis is about 19%. Malignant transformation of synovial chondromatosis to chondrosarcoma is extremely rare. No wound infections were reported and avascular necrosis of the femoral head occurred in one patient who was treated with dislocation of the hip during surgery. After resection of synovial chondromatosis excellent functional outcome can be expected.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis and DAIR Treatment in Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty, A National Survey in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: To prevent postoperative infection the use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is common ground. Type of antibiotic used and duration of prophylaxis are subject to debate. In case of suspected early periprosthetic infection a debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure is treatment of first choice. This study evaluated the antibiotic prophylaxis and DAIR treatment protocols nationwide as well as reporting of these DAIR procedures to the national joint registry. METHODS: All institutions that performed total hip or knee arthroplasty were contacted to complete a 16-question online survey. Questions included availability of a protocol, type and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis used and tendency to register infectious complications in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. RESULTS: All ninety-nine consulted institutions responded to this survey. All but one institutions have a standardized hospital based protocol for antibiotic prophylaxis in primary total hip or knee arthroplasty. Cefazolin was antibiotic prophylaxis of choice in ninety-four institutions for both primary hip and knee arthroplasty. In ten institutions one preoperative gift of antibiotic prophylaxis was administered. A protocol describing treatment when suspecting early periprosthetic joint infection was present in seventy-one institutions. When performing a DAIR procedure modular parts were exchanged in seventy institutions in case of a hip prosthesis and in eighty-one institutions in case of a knee prosthesis. Sixty-three institutions register DAIR procedures in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. INTERPRETATION: In contradiction to the results of a recent study in Great Britain, we have found only little variety in availability of protocols and in the type of antibiotic used as prophylaxis in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty in The Netherlands. Not every institution has a protocol for treatment in suspicion of early infection. Although mobile parts are exchanged in the majority of cases, there appears to be an underreporting of DAIR procedures in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

Are current foot- and ankle outcome measures appropriate for the evaluation of treatment for osteoarthritis of the ankle?: Evaluation of ceiling effects in foot- and ankle outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: Many PROMs used for evaluation of ankle osteoarthritis are not validated for this purpose. We hypothesize that frequently used PROMs have an early ceiling or floor effect. METHODS: We prospectively collected data from patients with ankle osteoarthritis between 2011 and 2013. At baseline visit patients completed the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, the Ankle Osteoarthritis Score, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scale, a visual analogue scale for pain and quality of life. Outcomes were analyzed for floor or ceiling effects. RESULTS: 197 patients were included in the study. A floor effect was present for the AOFAS and VAS for pain in all groups. Floor and ceiling effect are absent for the FAOS outcome measure for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should be aware of floor or ceiling effects when evaluating treatment using patient reported outcome measures. The FAOS outcome measure lacks early ceiling or floor effects.

Single-stage total knee arthroplasty and osteotomy as treatment of secondary osteoarthritis with severe coronal deviation of joint surface due to extra-articular deformity.

PURPOSE: Severe extra-articular deformities can be treated with single-stage total knee replacement (TKA) and osteotomy. Aim of this study was to examine the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and the complications after single-stage TKA and osteotomy. We hypothesized patients achieve good outcome after single-stage TKA and osteotomy, which is comparable to outcome after primary TKA without deformity. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with severe extra-articular deformity who underwent single-stage TKA and deformity-correcting osteotomy were reviewed and invited to fill in PROMs including the Oxford Knee Score, the Short Form-12, a Visual Analogue Scale for pain, and questions about satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 64 months. Ten patients were treated with TKA and supracondylar femoral osteotomy. Although PROMs showed good results (mean quality of life score was 85 out of 100), two patients had a revision of the osteotomy due to non-union. Eleven patients were treated with TKA and high tibial osteotomy. Patients were satisfied with the results (mean quality of life score was 81 out of 100). Two patients developed infection requiring debridement, resulting in one arthrodesis and one gastrocnemius transfer for wound closure. CONCLUSION: In general, patients were satisfied with the postoperative result. Outcome was comparable to patients after primary TKA in the literature. However, serious complications need to be taken into account. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Radial Head Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the expanding body of literature on radial head arthroplasty, the increasing understanding of elbow anatomy, biomechanics, and kinetics, and the evolution of surgical techniques and prosthesis designs, there is currently no evidence to support one type of radial head prosthesis over another. The purposes of the present report were to review the literature and to explore the association between prosthesis design variables and the timing of surgery and the outcome of modern radial head arthroplasty. METHODS: The literature search was limited to studies involving skeletally mature patients. Major databases were searched from January 1940 to May 2015 to identify studies relating to functional and subjective outcomes and radiographic results after radial head arthroplasty. RESULTS: Thirty articles involving 727 patients were included. Seventy percent of the implants were made of cobalt-chromium, 15% were made of pyrocarbon, 9% were made of titanium, and 6% were made of Vitallium. Seventy percent were monopolar, and 30% were bipolar. Twenty-one percent were cemented in place, 32% were press-fit, 32% were intentionally loose-fit, and 15% were fixed with an expandable stem. The weighted average duration of follow-up was 45 months. The rate of revision ranged from 0% to 29% among studies. The incidence of revision was 8% during 2,714 person-years of follow-up across all 727 patients, yielding a crude overall revision rate of 2.06 per 100 person-years of follow-up. The revision rate was not significantly affected by prosthesis polarity, material, or fixation technique, nor was it significantly affected by the delay of treatment. There was also no significant effect of prosthesis polarity, material, or fixation technique on postoperative range of motion. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score was only reported for half of the overall patient population, but, among those patients, the combined rate of excellent and good results was 85%. Seven percent of the overall patient population underwent secondary surgery about the elbow other than revision surgery. Twenty-three percent were reported to have 1 or more complications. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our analysis of the peer-reviewed English-language literature on radial head arthroplasty from January 1940 to May 2015, there seems to be no evidence to support one type of radial head prosthesis over another. The only exception is that silicone prostheses have been shown to be biologically and biomechanically insufficient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Lateral subtalar dislocation: Case report and review of the literature.

A case of complicated lateral subtalar dislocation is presented and the literature concerning this injury is reviewed. Subtalar joint dislocations are rare and often the result of a high-energy trauma. Complications include avascular necrosis of the talus, infection, posttraumatic osteoarthritis requiring arthrodesis and chronic subtalar instability. Negative prognostic factors include lateral and complicated dislocations, total talar extrusions, and associated fractures. A literature search was performed to identify studies describing outcome after lateral subtalar joint dislocation. Eight studies including fifty patients could be included, thirty out of 50 patients suffered a complicated injury. Mean follow-up was fifty-five months. Ankle function was reported as good in all patients with closed lateral subtalar dislocation. Thirteen out of thirty patients with complicated lateral subtalar joint dislocation developed a complication. Avascular necrosis was present in nine patients with complicated injury. Four patients with complicated lateral subtalar dislocation suffered deep infection requiring treatment with antibiotics. In case of uncomplicated lateral subtalar joint dislocation, excellent functional outcome after closed reduction and immobilization can be expected. In case of complicated lateral subtalar joint dislocation immediate reduction, wound debridement and if necessary (external) stabilisation are critical. Up to fifty percent of patients suffering complicated injury are at risk of developing complications such as avascular talar necrosis and infection.

Similar rate of infection eradication for functional articulating, prefabricated and custom-made spacers in 2-stage revision of the infected total hip: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: 2-stage revision with the use of an antibiotic-loaded interval spacer is therapy of choice in late periprosthetic joint infection for most surgeons. For the spacer, either a prefabricated, functional articulating or custom-made spacer can be used. Little is known about which type of spacer provides optimal outcome after 2-stage revision. The aim of this study was to determine which type of spacer provides the best results, when used in 2-stage revision of an infected THA. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature to analyse which type of interval spacer provides highest infection eradication rate and best functional outcome after a minimum 2 year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were follow-up of less than 2 years, single-stage revision, or 2-stage revision without use of a spacer. RESULTS: 25 studies were included. Infection eradication rate was similar with rates of 96%, 93% and 95% for the prefabricated-, functional articulating- and custom-made spacers respectively. Functional outcome was scarcely described. Postoperative HHS was 81, 90 and 83 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Functional articulating spacers achieve a comparable rate of infection eradication in the treatment of periprosthetic hip joint infections as compared to preformed or custom-made antibiotic-loaded spacers. There is insufficient evidence concerning rehabilitation and functional outcome after 2-stage revision hip arthroplasty to advocate or discourage the use of either kind of interval spacer.